COUNTERPOINTS: Will the Bratton-SPP contract lead to more stop-and-frisk by Oakland police?

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, after a raucous meeting where citizens on both sides of the issue filled the Council chambers and several side rooms, the Oakland City Council ratified the controversial quarter of a million dollar consultant contract with national police consultants Strategic Policy Partnerships to “put in place a much needed short-term crime fighting strategy and a citywide reduction and community safety plan.” (See additional stories below)

The consultant contract wasn’t controversial because Oakland folks didn’t think we needed a crime fighting strategy (many in the city actually think the police and administration have been fumbling around without either plan or clue for years), but because one of the SPP consultants is former New York Police Commissioner and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton. Mr. Bratton is controversial because he is an advocate of the “stop-and-frisk” crime-fighting policy.

Oakland officials want Mr. Bratton not for his “stop-and-frisk” advocacy, but for his expertise on the police department’s computerized policing management system, CompStat (“What Is CompStat” University of Maryland “Implementing And Institutionalizing CompStat In Maryland”). But “stop-and-frisk” is baggage Mr. Bratton cannot and refuses to discard, even if Oakland officials wish he could. (See Former NYPD Chief Bill Bratton Compares Stop-And-Frisks To Chemotherapy at DNAinfo.com.

“Stop-and-frisk” works pretty much as it sounds. Police stop people walking or riding the city streets to do an ID check and physical search, not because they actually observe the people doing anything illegal, but because the police think the people might be up to something illegal. If the check and search turns up something suspicious or illegal, the folks are either detained or arrested. If not, the “suspects” are let go.

The practice would seem to be a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, simply, that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Opponents of stop-and-frisk also charge that the policy is openly racially discriminatory, as it is African-American or Latino youth who are the ones police tend to believe are walking or riding around with bad intent.